What this tyrant wanna-be does not get is that the mentally ill have no right to use any party of my property. If you come into my building, you are there as my guest and subject to my rules. This includes the use of my bathroom. If you do not like my rules, you are free to not enter my property or leave. The property owners has all the rights. The mentally ill has none.

Unfortunately, that does not appear the case. However I will still state my arguments.

1. Context

A. The U.S. is one of the most "prudish" countries in the western world; that is we adhere to strict and rigid social norms about what is socially acceptable when it comes to sex and gender, specifically compared to our peers in Europe [1]. Many European countries are open about sex and do not stigmatize social nudity [2]. As such, they recognize that there is nothing inherently grotesque, or more importantly harmful, when it comes to mixing the sexes.

B. Being transgender is very complicated; it's not a frivolous identity. Law makers have oversimplified this discussion by suggesting it "just makes sense" to use the bathroom that matches your biological sex. This is a fallacious bare assertion. Indeed gender is very complex and there are many factors (social and physical) that determine one's valid gender identity. It is NOT dictated by biological sex [3].

2. Transgender Rights

Why is it important to let transgender people choose their bathroom?

A. Transgender people experience insufferable discrimination and psychological hardship [4]. Some people believe they suffer from a condition called body dysmorphia [5]. Why make life harder (unnecessarily) for these people who are already experiencing so much pain and suffering?

B. Transgender people often go through great pains to look like the opposite sex; many spend thousands of dollars on surgeries to dramatically transform their bodies. I would like to submit the following photos as examples of transgender people:

As you can see, these people do not at ALL look like their (atypical) sex.

Transgender people would be tared at, ruthlessly mocked, confronted and violently attacked (history shows) if they used the bathroom that matches their biological sex, because most people would assume they were using the "wrong" bathroom.

Indeed, even if my opponent argues that only transgender people who have had sex change surgeries ought to be allowed to choose their bathroom, how would any bathroom goer know whether or not this person had the surgery? More about this later.

C. The primary reason it's important that trans people can select their bathroom is to protect their physical safety. Last year, a Congressional forum investigated what they called an EPIDEMIC of violence against transgender people [4]. The number of hate crimes against trans people has more than tripled in the last 2 years [5]. Much of this violence specifically stems from mistakes of gendered bathroom identity.

Chrissy Lee Polis was viciously attacked by two teenagers as she entered the women’s bathroom at McDonald’s, after her attackers recognized Chrissy is transgender [6]. More than 70% of trans people have experienced violent intimidation and/or confrontation while using the bathroom; some were even denied access [7].

"There were health consequences for respondents as well, with 54 percent reporting physical complications like dehydration, urinary tract infections, kidney infections, and other kidney problems simply because of the tactics they used to avoid going to the restroom during the day. Many health facilities also have gender-segregated restrooms, which discourages individuals from seeking treatment for these conditions. As many as 58 percent have avoided going out in public at times because of bathroom concerns" [7].

Trans people suffer from transphobic bathroom policy, and have every reason to fear for their safety.

3. The Case Against Trans Rights

A. Socially conservative people who feel uncomfortable need to get over it. The law exists to protect people's rights, not their feelings. I personally feel uncomfortable by our money saying "In God We Trust" and having God in our Pledge of Allegiance; after all I am an atheist and our country is supposed to value a separation of church and state. Yet despite everything I'm uncomfortable with (including crocs, goth music and vegans), I have to coexist and recognize the rights of my fellow man. I can choose to stay home or avoid places where my discomfort poses a problem. These people's feelings aren't any more relevant than the feelings of trans people that ought to be considered. Trans people actually suffer psychological harm from rejection and condemnation of their gender identity [8] as opposed to just icky feelings which is childish.

B. The biggest reason people oppose trans bathroom rights is because people are (allegedly) worried about women's safety. However this fear is completely unwarranted based on both statistical and logical analysis.

First and foremost, let's consider whether or not gendered bathrooms would actually stop someone from committing sexual assault. Since rapists and voyeurs obviously don't care about breaking the law, it's naive to think gendered bathroom signs would be a deterrent. These people are already raping or voyeuring regardless of what the law or signs say.

Second, people claim they are worried about their daughters peeing next to pedophiles. Why aren't people worried about their sons peeing next to pedophiles? The majority of pedophiles are cis gendered males, not trans, and we could arguably and reasonably suspect or notice when a cis gendered male enters the women's room.

Most rape does not occur in public places, and occurs by someone that the victim actually knows [9].

"Over 200 municipalities and 18 states have nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people’s access to facilities consistent with the gender they live every day,” according to the coalition. "None of those jurisdictions have seen a rise in sexual violence or other public safety issues due to nondiscrimination laws. Assaulting another person in a restroom or changing room remains against the law in every single state" [10].

Furthermore, anti-trans policies do not take into account that men can also be victims of sexual assault and harassment in public bathrooms. Transgender men who have had to use female restrooms due to such anti-trans laws experience a ton of violence in women’s bathrooms, and are told they don’t belong there. Why is violence against these people (which is real rather than theorized) any less significant?

4. Pragmatic / Legal Reality

A. Let's assume that my opponent suggests only trans people who have had sex changes ought to be able to choose their preferred bathroom. One, this discriminates against people who cannot afford to have the ridiculously expensive procedures it takes to transition. Two, this is not realistically enforceable. Once again, how would anyone know whether or not someone had sexual reassignment surgery, unless they were a doctor who could recognize such surgery AND asked any suspect to get naked in a public bathroom? There is no real way to implement this policy nor any realistic expectation of who to enforce it and how.

B. Sexual organs alone often cannot distinguish gender. In fact there are lots of intersex conditions. “Intersex” is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male [11].

C. Even if Con suggested making someone strip naked in a public bathroom to check their genitals, this is not Constitutional. U.S. citizens are protected from unreasonable searches by the 4th amendment [12].

D. The Supreme Court has set a precedent when it dealt with 1996’s Romer v. Evans. The Court explained that the Equal Protection Clause forbids a state from “singling out a certain class of citizens” and “imposing a special disability upon those persons alone.” Such a law is “inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects,” and under the 14th Amendment, “animosity” toward a “politically unpopular group” is not a “proper legislative end.” Anti-trans bathroom policy “identifies persons by a single trait”—gay or trans identity—“and then denies them protection across the board.” The Equal Protection Clause cannot tolerate this “bare desire to harm” minorities [13].

It is an indisputable fact of reality that there only two genders: male and female. When one denies reality, one is mentally ill. This is not complicated, but it is incredibly simple.

And we should apply maximal social disapprobation to the who choose to deny reality with the hope and intent they seek help and healing. It is why we discriminate against those who have other serious mental illnesses, even to the point of locking them up and forcing them to get help. The delusional deserve this help.

And no, the mentally normal who accept reality do not need to get over it. Those who enable and hate the mentally ill need to repent of that hate and embrace reality. Ironically, it is they who rebel again facts and base their position on feelings, which they need to get over.

Indeed, by making women use women's bathrooms and men use men's bathrooms, we are treating everyone equally. The sodomite lobby just does not understand equality.

And naturally, my opponent dodged the real issue, which is the non-existence of rights for these mentally ill people and his opposition to real rights.

My opponent claims that it is an "indisputable fact" that there are only two genders: male and female.

1. This is irrelevant to the resolution
2. It is wrong which I've explained in the last round

Please extend my arguments on the difference between sex and gender. Con has dropped them.

Since gender is a social construct, it is fluid with many variations. Some argue that there are up to 63 ways to identify one's gender [1] "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between and from masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity" [2].

My opponent has dropped my points on the state of being intersex as well.

Nevertheless, EVEN IF one was mentally ill (in identifying as other than cis male or cis female) it doesn't prove that trans bathroom rights should not exist, as I've argued in the last round. Con insists that trans people suffer additional scrutiny and suffering with more punishment for their condition. He ignores all of my points about why trans bathroom rights are important (trans people's safety) from the last round. Please extend.

Con insists that trans people are mentally ill, though many in the science community deny that it is a mental disorder [3]. Again this would be irrelevant to the resolution anyway - we don't discriminate against people with all mental disorders when it comes to bathrooms.

Being trans is not a choice and it is an unfortunate condition of gender dysphoria. "Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones" [4].

My opponent made some (poor conduct) remark about the "sodomite lobby" and an irrelevant comment on rights. He completely failed to respond to my contentions. Con hasn't explained why trans people - with proven discrimination and violence against them (especially when it comes to bathroom politics) should be subject to laws that put them in danger. He also hasn't proven that trans people using the bathroom of their choices causes any harm at all.

Actually, the fact that there are only two genders is the only issue, for it exposes the sexual pervert and their sympathizers are rebelling against reality, making any claim to have a right to do so a laughable joke. Indeed, his delusions do not and should not influence law.

And this dude still has run from the other only relevant point that his notion of "rights", being inaginary, must deny real rights. Sorry, no, your view is not only deluded but unconstitutional.

No, gender is not a social construct save in the minds of the mentally ill. It is a very simple biological reality. You are either make by biology or female by biology. The existence of some genetic abnormalities do not change this fact. Indeed. We use genetic defects as a basis for discrimination all of the time. Try getting a person with Down syndrome a driver's license. To deny biology is to be mentally ill.

No, the science community does not deny that gender confusion is a mental illness, at least not the objective scientific community.

The fact is that this type of deluded individual does not have rights to use my bathroom as he or she pleases. Indeed, this pervert sympathizer has not even made a case for the existence of such and has only demonstrated he does not know what rights are.

Only a mentally ill person would deny that you choose what clothes to wear. And here we see the real agenda of the sexual perverts: they want to escape personal accountability for their chooses. They want to do wrong without conseqncdc. It is the philosophy of the emotionally immature, spoind-brat child. It should not made law.

Until this pervert sympathizer can explain to my why my real rights to property, assembly and contract should be overridden by his imaginary rights, he loses the debate.

My opponent insists that there are only 2 genders, which completely ignores both the sociological and scientific (biological) evidence I provided to the contrary which explains variations in both gender and biological sex. Please extend.

Con claims that trans people don't have the "right" to use the bathroom. Even if we accepted this to be true (which the audience should not), the resolution states that trans people SHOULD be able to use the bathroom of their choice - not necessarily that they have the right to do so.

However trans people should have this right in public bathrooms, which is the R1 stipulation. Private business owners may discriminate, but public (non-private) institutions that are funded by tax payers - some of them trans - ought to consider the moral and legal implications of bathroom politics.

Con repeatedly calls trans people "perverted" and "delusional" which is not only bad conduct, but obnoxiously ignorant.

Con should lose conduct points for calling me a "pervert sympathizer." It's sad when someone resorts to name-calling because they have no intelligent argument to make whatsoever.

Con also makes an irrelevant comment about clothing in the last round. This debate is about bathroom politics. The audience should disregard all of my opponent's childish and anti-intellectual commentary.

Conclusion

My hateful, fearful opponent hasn't explained why trans people - with proven discrimination and violence against them (especially when it comes to bathroom politics) should be subject to laws that put them in danger. He also hasn't proven that trans people using the bathroom of their choice causes any harm at all. On the other hand, I have explained why trans people fear for their safety and are often attacked over bathroom politics. By letting them choose their bathroom, it doesn't put anyone in danger (studies show) while protecting them from danger, and also respecting their integrity. There is no good reason to force them to be humiliated and subject to great danger, just because it makes ignorant and close-minded people uncomfortable.

This perverts sympathizer is as full of emotions as any spoils brat, but still ignores reality. There is no biological evidence that says there are more than two genders and it is the mentally ill that want society to base law on mental illness and not reality.

And since the mentally ill do not have the right to use my property contrary to my consent and since the rights to property, assembly and contract are real and this "right" is imaginary, the pervert sympathizer loses the debate.

And since the public owns the bathrooms in question, the public decides this issue and the sexual perverts lose the debate.

The pervert sympathizer loses the debate because she has not proven her case or shown why real rights do not exist. I win.

Con may be a troll. But what he is advancing isn't what a number of other people are inclined to believe. It's difficult for some people. Many people don't understand what is and what it is to be transgender and for those with limited abilities or willingness to think outside a fixed set of inflexible beliefs the usual initial response is to reject whatever it is and then to attack it as both illegitimate and dangerous..
One thing now opponents of transgender rights are exploiting is a widespread societal phobia about pedophilia. Pedophilia is real and serious but the public fear of it is exaggerated, irrational, and frankly counter productive. Many of the provisions taken to protect children from so called pedophiles either don't work or ironically places children at greater risk.

RFD
Conduct: Con is clearly a troll and did not take this debate seriously. He used foul language several times and referred to transgenders as mentally unstable.
Grammar: Multiple spelling and grammar issues.
Arguments : Con did not refute a single argument from pro.
Sources: Pro was the only person to use sources.

VR, you obviously have the right to express your views, but you shouldn't ruin someone's debate like this. If you would have reviewed any of Danielle's past debates you would have seen there is a high standard of evidence and argumentation. You should have been prepared to match at least a quarter of the effort she puts in before accepting.

6 point to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: What could have been a good debate wasn't due to Con's conduct. Sources go to Pro also. Arguments go to Pro because they related more to the resolution at hand, rather than PERSONAL property, which really defined the debate.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct and sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than state these as though they're obvious " the point allocations have to be explained. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The relevance of Pro's arguments may be key to the outcome, but the voter still has to assess specific points made by each side to establish that relevance.
************************************************************************

Who would have thought these pervert sympathizers would come up with ANOTHER emotion-based post while still not telling my why it is ok to discriminate against one mentally ill sexual pervert and not another. Did I not say flaking hypocrite!

ViceRegent: playing the pedophile card is shameful and despicable it also reveals all too clearly your utter ignorance not only about transgender issues but about pedophilia as well. . As Danielle has said banning trans people from the bathrooms of their gender identity doesn't stop rapists and pedophiles nor does it protect women and children from sexual predators.